W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > September 2007

Re: Improvements to SOAP warnings and fatal errors (and other error identifiers)

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:00:08 +0900
Message-Id: <D72F01D8-ACE8-4CB5-B52F-D087679077E3@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
To: Brian Wilson <bloo@blooberry.com>


On Aug 30, 2007, at 15:14 , Brian Wilson wrote:
>>> I'm currently doing string matches against the <env:Reason>/ 
>>> <env:Text>
>>> content when a <env:Fault>/m:exception is encountered, and that
>>> solution
>>> doesn't seem very elegant.
[...]
>  I'd like to store a very short unique identifier for every error
> class reported and that would go for fatal errors too. I could  
> intercept
> those messages and create my own codes, but it would be easier (and  
> maybe
> for others) if they were already there.

OK, done in CVS
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/share/templates/en_US/ 
soap_fault.tmpl.diff?r1=1.4&r2=1.5&f=h

That was the easy part. Now comes the really tricky issue, for which  
I wonder if anyone has ideas.

Our main parser (for validation against DTDs), opensp, has the  
wonderful feature, that with each error, it gives a little code that  
says "by the way, this is error 128". Other parsers certainly have  
that way of giving an id for each error, but they're not sharing it  
with the client. This is a problem for the validator, which now uses  
XML::LibXML for XML well-formedness checking, and probably in the  
future, for checks against XML schema, schematron, relaxng...

No identifier for each single error means no way to have (like we  
have for DTD validation) a library of explanations and suggestions  
for fixes. My two ideas to resolve this are:
* extract a list of all errors from libxml and assign an id to each,  
match with regexp each time one is thrown
* suggest to Daniel and the libxml team to "expose" the error ids, if  
they exist.

The former is not extremely performant but feasible, the latter is  
probably not feasible, but worth asking anyway.

Thoughts?
-- 
olivier
Received on Friday, 7 September 2007 02:00:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:08:59 UTC